20 Reasons Why Hillary Would Wipe Her Server Clean

20 Reasons Why Hillary Would Wipe Her Server Clean

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Hillary is a hoarder.  So is Bill.  So if she actually removed everything from her server, she had to be convinced that it would be more dangerous to keep the emails than to ride through a scandal, no matter how rough.

This scandal isn't about Hillary's privacy, it's about her self-preservation.  So here's what would make her do it:

1.  The emails contained damaging information about Benghazi that conflicted with her testimony and statements.

2.  The emails -- and those of her closest aides -- showed her improper use of her position to benefit the Clinton Foundation, Clinton Global Initiative, Teneo, and herself.

3.  If she gave the Benghazi Committee electronic access to the emails, they could easily determine whether any had been edited or altered.  It would have been extremely difficult to delete just some of the information in the emails.  If she tried to doctor them, the system would likely show when it was last edited.  Any edits after she left the State Department would be highly suspicious and the earlier versions could probably be retrieved anyway.  So, it would be much easier to give out only hard copies, which can be easily doctored without detection and which would be difficult to search electronically.

4.  The emails would show the improper coordination with the Clinton Global Initiative and U.S. corporations.  Huma Abedin worked for the State Department as Clinton's right hand person, Teneo, and the Clinton Global Initiative all at once.  She used one of Hillary's private email accounts on Hillary's server.  Were her emails deleted too?

5.  The emails would show just how many of her political cronies she brought into the State Department.

6.  She wanted to hide any policy disagreements with Obama.

7.  She wanted to hide any knowledge of and role in the NSA spying on foreign leaders.

8.  She wanted to conceal efforts to topple pro-democracy regime in Honduras and restore a would- be dictator.

9.  She wanted to hide efforts to arm Syrian rebels.

10.  She wanted to hide her push to keep Egypt President Mubarek in office.

11.  The emails would show her back channel Benghazi "intelligence" briefings from Sidney Blumenthal and any responses, and...

12.  Conceal her role in postponing signing the UN Arms Control Treaty until after the 2012 election, and...  

13.  Conceal her opposition to designating Boko Haram as a terrorist organization, and...  

14.  Hide her comments critical of Israel in the settlement controversy, and... 

15.  Conceal her position on troop surge for Afghanistan, and... 

16.  Hide her support for accommodation with China despite its well documented human rights abuses, and...

17.  Conceal her comments on the DEA Fast and Furious program and its impact on US-Mexican relations, and... 

 
18.  Hide what we were doing in Benghazi in the first place, and...

19.  Conceal the possible role disgraced former NSA advisor -- and Hillary pal -- Sandy Berger played in advising her, and finally...

20.  Because she's Hillary Clinton and she doesn't have to do anything that she doesn't want to do.

Given the highly suspicious timing of the mass deletions -- about two years after she left the State Department -- the only inference that can be drawn about why she dumped the documents is that she was HIDING a lot.  There's just no way to conclude otherwise.  It's typical Hillary.  Do we need four more years of her messes?

Indiana’s RFRA Act .... what are the real issues?

Indiana’s RFRA Act .... what is the real issue?

It should come as no surprise to us of the present age that religion plays a key role in political life. Recently the State of Indiana enacted its Religious Freedom Restoration Act that parallels Federal legislation and statutes of many other states of the Union. 

Unfortunately, some American citizens or interests are keen on exposing the so-called discrimination or potential discrimination that this kind of legislation may perpetrate against fellow citizens who are part of the sexual orientation and gender identity movement.

Powerful influences including elements of the media, the NCAA, and large corporations that publicly support the political, social, and cultural initiatives of this movement have been adding their objections to this new legislation which reflects what has been the law for some time in other jurisdictions. Could it be that there is something in the text of the Indiana law that is different? I do not think that is the real issue. The real issue resides in the text itself and what the text is supposed to protect, which I shall address in a moment.

The opponents of the new Indiana law are now pressuring the legislators and the governor, who supports the legislation, for clarifications. But are clarifications needed? This is where a careful examination and interpretation of the text are in order. After all, words and their meanings are important to the law as are the entire texts. In my discussion today, I am relying on Indiana Senate Bill No. 568 introduced on January 20 of this year and enacted this past week. The text is HERE:  Download SB0568.01.INTR.

The substance of the legislation is contained in Section 6 that provides that state action or the action of an individual based on state action cannot “substantially burden a person’s right to the exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a law or policy of general applicability.” The same section further provides that a burden to the right of religious free exercise may be lawful and trump the right of religious freedom if the burden is “essential to further a compelling governmental interest” and is “the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest.” This language essentially tracks Supreme Court jurisprudence, albeit at times confusing, on the nature of religious liberty.

The first five sections of the legislation contain the definitions applicable to the intent and purpose of the new law. I find two of the definitions crucial to meeting the general opposition to the state RFRA that opponents of the bill are voicing. Section 3 defines the phrase “the exercise of religion.” The definition can be fairly distilled as the practice or observance of a person’s [defined in Section 4] ability to act or to refuse to act in a manner that is substantially motivated by the person’s sincerely held religious belief. Inherent in this protected right is the defense of the person who is acting or refusing to act on the grounds of that person’s religion. This protected right does not impose on the non-believer or someone who adheres to some other faith. It protects the claimant who is exercising a Constitutional and now an Indiana statutory right. It does not interfere with the legal rights of others who may disagree with the religious tenets in issue.

To understand this point further, it is useful to look at the second important definition to which I alluded a moment ago, and this definition concerns the “compelling governmental interest” that can derogate the protected right of religious freedom under specified circumstances. A “compelling governmental interest” is defined as “a governmental interest of the highest magnitude that cannot otherwise be achieved without burdening the exercise of religion.” I have emphasized two passages with italics.

While the first italicized phrase might profit from a definition, I do not think that a definition essential to the protection of all legitimate interests at stake. The phrase “the highest magnitude” suggests a crucial legal, perhaps even constitutional, principle that is essential to the integrity and survival of the Republic, the State of Indiana, and the commonweal/common good.

Opponents to the legislation appear to ignore this element of the text when they argue that the Indiana law “could make it easier for religious conservatives [the legislation does not use the term “conservative” anywhere] to refuse service to gay couples.” What might these services be? The denial of some services to anyone might actually be a lawful act of discrimination rather than an unlawful act of discrimination.

For example, an innkeeper might discriminate against a would-be customer if the innkeeper refuses to serve alcohol to someone who is already intoxicated or underage. This refusal could be compelled not only by law but also by a person’s sincerely held religious belief that the intoxicated or underage person should not be served. Might the proprietor of a bed and breakfast refuse to accommodate a single person? Unless the single person is rowdy, a known fugitive from justice, travelling with an animal, etc., it would be difficult for the proprietor to refuse accommodation on the grounds of religious freedom as the law is designed to protect. But what if it is a couple of persons? Does it matter if they are of the same-sex or opposite-sex? Could the proprietor rely on the provisions of this law to deny accommodation to either couple and not trigger the compelling governmental interest standard of the highest magnitude? It would seem that the right of religious freedom (or conscience which is not directly addressed by the statute’s language) as enshrined by the law would protect the proprietor who knows that the opposite-sex-couple is not married. Why should the same-sex-couple be treated differently by forcing the proprietor to provide them with a room with a large bed? (Perhaps the circumstances would be different if this couple were Queequeg and Ismael from Melville’s Moby Dick, but I digress.) Is there a compelling governmental interest of the highest magnitude that is at stake? Would it matter if the proprietor of the business relying on the religious liberty protection operates a bakery and objects to an opposite-sex-couple who want a cake to celebrate their living together out of wedlock or a same-sex-couple who order a cake to celebrate their commitment or union under state law?

The point here is this: must a person seeking the protection of this law conform his, her, or its religious conscience and thereby sacrifice his, her, or its religious faith to the sin of someone who desires to have his, her, or its action declared a compelling governmental interest of the highest magnitude that cannot otherwise be achieved without burdening the religious person’s free exercise? It strikes me that, given the context of those objecting to this law, this is precisely the objective that they are seeking. They are pursuing the goal because they see no sin or sin is inconsequential; it is irrelevant to them that they are asking another person to cooperate and participate in their sin. This circumstance parallels what medical providers are now facing from their licensing authorities when they are forced to refer a patient to a medical provider who will provide the service they cannot provide due to their sincerely held religious belief or conscience.

As I keep going over the text of the new Indiana law and consider the objections raised by its opponents, I see strong parallels to what Henry VIII did in England from 1533-35. Both the king and the opponents of the Indiana law will not tolerate anyone who disagrees with their objective from escaping. All must conform to the goals of the law’s opponents, and sincerely held religious beliefs will be no defense. We know what happened during and after 1535 in England. Is this same thing really required under the rubric of a compelling governmental interest of the highest magnitude today? If so, then sin wins once again and virtue is at forfeit.

Law professor: Why Indiana needs 'religious freedom' legislation

Law professor: Why Indiana needs 'religious freedom' legislation

Daniel O. Conkle, professor, Indiana University Maurer School of Law

I am a supporter of gay rights, including same-sex marriage. But as an informed legal scholar, I also support the proposed Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). How can this be?

It's because — despite all the rhetoric — the bill has little to do with same-sex marriage and everything to do with religious freedom.

The bill would establish a general legal standard, the "compelling interest" test, for evaluating laws and governmental practices that impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion. This same test already governs federal law under the federal RFRA, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. And some 30 states have adopted the same standard, either under state-law RFRAs or as a matter of state constitutional law.

Applying this test, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a Muslim prisoner was free to practice his faith by wearing a half-inch beard that posed no risk to prison security. Likewise, in a 2012 decision, a court ruled that the Pennsylvania RFRA protected the outreach ministry of a group of Philadelphia churches, ruling that the city could not bar them from feeding homeless individuals in the city parks.

If the Indiana RFRA is adopted, this same general approach will govern religious freedom claims of all sorts, thus protecting religious believers of all faiths by granting them precisely the same consideration.

But granting religious believers legal consideration does not mean that their religious objections will always be upheld. And this brings us to the issue of same-sex marriage.

Under the Indiana RFRA, those who provide creative services for weddings, such as photographers, florists or bakers, could claim that religious freedom protects them from local nondiscrimination laws. Like other religious objectors, they would have their day in court, as they should, permitting them to argue that the government is improperly requiring them to violate their religion by participating (in their view) in a celebration that their religion does not allow.

But courts generally have ruled that the government has a compelling interest in preventing discrimination and that this interest precludes the recognition of religious exceptions. Even in the narrow setting of wedding-service providers, claims for religious exemptions recently have been rejected in various states, including states that have adopted the RFRA test. A court could rule otherwise, protecting religious freedom in this distinctive context. But to date, none has.

In any event, most religious freedom claims have nothing to do with same-sex marriage or discrimination. The proposed Indiana RFRA would provide valuable guidance to Indiana courts, directing them to balance religious freedom against competing interests under the same legal standard that applies throughout most of the land. It is anything but a "license to discriminate," and it should not be miss characterized or dismissed on that basis.

LETTERMAN'S TOP 10 REASONS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT

LETTERMAN'S TOP 10 REASONS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT

#10.  I vote Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my German Shepherd.

#9.  I vote Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon at 15% isn't.

#8.  I vote Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

#7.  I vote Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

#6.  I vote Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.  I am also thankful that we have a 911 service that gets police to your home in order to identify your body after a home invasion.

#5.  I vote Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive and comfy.

#4.  I vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take away Social Security from those who paid into it.

#3. I vote Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves.  They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrat Party sees fit.

 #2.  I vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

 #1 reason I vote Democrat is because I think it's better to pay $billions$ for oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher, or fish here in America. We don't care about the beetles, gophers, or fish in those other countries.

        "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits"... Albert Einstein 

Wisconsin State Trooper Trevor Casper shot dead by a thug

#TrevorsLifeMatters, #PoliceLivesMatter

BY TIM SCHMIDT

• A crowd of thousands won’t chant it, so I will: Justice for Trevor. 
• A nation won’t hashtag it, so I will: #TrevorsLifeMatters. 
• A president won’t say it, so I will: If I had a son, he’d look like Trevor Casper.” 

If the above words don’t send shivers down your spine, you probably haven’t heard the story of Wisconsin State Trooper Trevor Casper. 

Trevor Casper: 

21 years old. 2011 graduate of Kiel High School. December, 2014 graduate of the Wisconsin State Patrol’s 60th recruiting class. Beloved son. Beloved brother. 

Trevor Casper: 

Deceased. Shot and killed on Tuesday, March 24th in an exchange of gunfire with a bank robber...on his very first day of solo patrol. 

Trevor Casper: 

Undoubtedly one of the good guys. 

You know, I’m not going to waste a single second talking about the bad guy here. That might be the mainstream media’s mode of operation, but it’s not mine. 

I’m sticking with Trevor Casper. After all, his is the name we should remember. 

Yes, I’m sad and I’m angry. But I’m also grateful. I’m grateful that in the midst of a period in history where the actions of our nation’s law enforcement officers are questioned at every turn, there are people like Trevor Casper willing to stand up for what’s right. 

Irish orator Sir Edmund Burke once said that "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." 

Well, not on Trevor Casper’s watch. 

Trevor died doing what he was sworn to do—what he claims he was “born to do,”—and his story serves as a reminder to all of us just how incredible the sacrifice “to serve and protect” really is. 

I simply cannot fathom that there are people out there who protest the justified defensive actions of our nation’s law enforcement officers—actions that few understand and even fewer are willing to carry out. 

I simply cannot fathom that there are people out there who refuse to acknowledge that a police officer shares in the natural-born right to defend his or her OWN LIFE. 

And I simply cannot fathom that there are people out there who continue to ignore the bottom line: evil exists in this world...and it always will. But remember, if there were no bad guys, we wouldn’t have good guys—heroes—like Trevor Casper. 

Trevor Casper: 

Protector. Purveyor of justice. 

He undoubtedly saved countless lives with his heroic actions...and he paid the ultimate price. As Wisconsin mourns and the thin blue line gets a little thinner, the least we can do is remember his name: 

Trevor Casper. 

Prayers to his family, to Wisconsin State Patrol, and to all law enforcement officers who, like Trevor, wouldn’t hesitate to lay down their lives to keep people like you and me safe. 
Take Care and Stay Safe, 

Butt out of Archdiocese’s business

Butt out of Archdiocese’s business

Local Letter to the Editor

I found the March 22 Enquirer editorial, “Contract still more Big Brother, less Pope Francis,” alarming and bombastic for many reasons. First, what business is it of The Enquirer whether Catholic schools require that their employees not actively oppose Catholic teaching?

Teachers ministering and shaping the future of our children certainly ought to be held to a high standard. There would be outrage if the media started questioning the right of Jewish, Muslim, Mormon or other schools or institutions to require that their teachers or leaders not oppose the fundamentals of their faith. Perhaps that’s the price Catholic schools pay for being so successful that parents of different faiths choose to enroll their children to take advantage of the great education. But the whole point is that it is supposed to be a Catholic education, not something else. What concern is that of The Enquirer?

The headline is misleading. How can a contract be more like Pope Francis? This is a legal employment contract, which unfortunately in this day and age is required to prevent lawsuits. It’s not a press release,marketing material, sermon or mission statement. To compare such an administrative necessity to the wonderful message of Pope Francis is disingenuous and ignores the same local message coming from Catholic charities, schools, ministries, and outreach to the poor and sick.

The Enquirer claims the contract “forces teachers to dance a ridiculously fine line when discussing things such as gay rights and gay marriage in class, outside school and in private.” On the contrary, teachers who adhere to church teaching when discussing any “controversial” topic won’t go wrong. That’s what parents sending kids to Catholic schools expect.

It is wrong for The Enquirer to frame the contract as “a choice forced upon them by an archdiocese more intent on holding the line in a culture war than preserving human dignity and understanding.” Preserving human dignity and understanding are fundamental ideals for Catholic schools. The Enquirer and popular media are not the sole arbiter of these ideals. Please see the First Amendment of the Constitution.

It is ridiculous for The Enquirer to claim, “Students also face real consequences as they see their role models gagged, and their identities squelched as immoral.” No one is asking a teacher to be perfect. We are all sinners. The contract does not require teachers to be saints. The contract does not target one’s identity, but rather one’s behavior. After all, it was Catholic philosopher St. Augustine who wrote in 424 what has come to be known as “love the sinner but hate the sin.” It is fair that Catholic schools expect their teachers not appear on the next reality TV show filmed in Cincinnati.

The Enquirer states, “The Catholic Church is an inherently conservative organization.” This is a mischaracterization of a church that also opposes the death penalty; supports immigration reform and health care for all; advocates for social and economic justice; and ministers in prisons. It becomes clear that The Enquirer is not finding fault with the contract supporting church teachings as much as it is attacking the church teachings themselves. This being the case, where does it stop? “Moral questions” on various topics are sure to arise in the future as the influence of secular society encroaches on the personal sanctity of faith. Certainly the church is entitled to the same protection from such attack on its core principles under the First Amendment as is The Enquirer.
Butt out.

THE HATE RACKET

THE HATE RACKET

How one group cons government into equating Christians and conservatives with Klansmen and Nazis – and rakes in millions doing it!

It never has made sense, and most Americans are at a loss to explain it.

Why – in an era when virtually all violent extremism and terror activity in the U.S. comes from those in the grip of radical Islam – is the government obsessed with "rightwing extremism"?

Likewise, why are the major news media always looking for – one could almost say hoping for – evidence that "rightwing extremists" are the culprits in high-profile terror attacks, as proven by network news reports absurdly suggesting the Boston Marathon bombers and the Aurora, Colo., movie theater mass shooter were actually "rightwing extremists" or "tea party" members.

Even the Obama-era Department of Homeland Security and FBI have been preoccupied with threats of "rightwing extremists," warning law enforcement to watch out for unstable constitutionalists, radical pro-lifers, violent Second Amendment advocates, "anti-immigrant" activists and, especially, returning military veterans.

With genuine mega-threats to the American homeland looming daily from murderous, genocidal jihadists, why the fixation on phantom "rightwing extremists"?

Meet the Southern Poverty Law Center. This super-wealthy public-interest law firm headquartered in Montgomery, Ala., which decades ago made a name for itself by fighting the Ku Klux Klan, today presents itself as the nation's premier defender of civil liberties and protector of the innocent from violent extremism. Behind this veil, however, today's SPLC is revealed to be the wellspring and dominant think tank for outrageously defamatory leftwing attacks on individuals and organizations that embrace traditional Judeo-Christian values.

The group's primary modus operandi? Demonize and defame mainstream conservatives, Christians and Jews by lumping them together with genuine haters like neo-Nazi Skinheads and the Ku Klux Klan. Then highly publicize those "Hatewatch" lists and "Hate Maps," soliciting millions of dollars in donations to help SPLC combat all those supposed rightwing "haters" and "extremists" out there.

But now, the SPLC stands exposed as perhaps never before in the sensational March 2015 issue of Whistleblower, titled "THE HATE RACKET."

Recently, the bubble of illusion surrounding the SPLC burst for millions of Americans when the supposed civil rights organization attacked Dr. Benjamin Carson, the retired pediatric neurosurgeon and likely 2016 GOP presidential contender, by adding him to its "extremist watch list." Ironically, the soft-spoken, high-achieving, adversity-overcoming Carson is widely considered one of the most positive role models for young black males in modern America.

So, what was Carson's offense, for which he was – just like many other individuals and organizations before him, including WND – cast as a hateful and potentially dangerous rightwing "extremist" by the SPLC?

Fasten your seat belts: Dr. Carson stated, "Marriage is between a man and a woman."

"Wait a minute," said Whistleblower Editor and WND Vice President David Kupelian. "For politely expressing a view identical to the view embraced by virtually every person in the entire world at all times and in all places, except for some people in the U.S. and Europe in just the last few years, Dr. Carson was publicly defamed by the Southern Poverty Law Center and held up to ridicule by being portrayed as akin to the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazi Party."

Why does all this matter?

"Why would anybody even care," asked Kupelian, "what some venal, far-left organization says, especially one that is widely criticized – by both the left and the right – for being little more than a huge money racket, frightening rich, old, clueless liberals into believing America will soon be overrun with drooling Klansmen lynching blacks on every street corner if they don't send big donations to the SPLC?"

It matters because, as "THE HATE RACKET" reveals, this particular far-left organization exerts a huge influence not only on the major news media, but on the United States government, including the Department of Homeland Security. It's no coincidence that the government's notion of who constitutes a threat, a hater, an extremist, a potential terrorist, a danger to the American homeland, mirrors that of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Unfortunately, the SPLC's demonization of supposed "haters" and "extremists" also fixes a target on the backs of many mainstream Christian and conservative Americans and groups. Never was this point more dramatically made than when a confessed domestic terrorist admitted to FBI investigators he was inspired to violently attack the Family Research Council, a mainstream conservative Christian group headquartered for three decades in Washington, D.C., after seeing the FRC identified on the Law Center's notorious "hate map."

Here's how Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, FRC's executive vice president, describes the scene in the March Whistleblower:

On Aug. 15, 2012, a man went into an office building in downtown Washington, D.C., and shot a building manager – shattering the major bones in his left arm. The shooter, Floyd Lee Corkins II, wanted to kill as many people in the building as he could. Fortunately, his rampage of violence was cut short by the man he shot, Leo Johnson, before he could become a mass murderer of the employees at the Family Research Council.

Corkins was a pro-gay political activist. He told investigators he "wanted to kill the people in the building and then smear a Chick-fil-A sandwich in their face." Less than a month earlier, Chick-fil-A restaurants had seen a massive, national demonstration of support when it was learned that a foundation associated with the firm’s owners gave some minor financial support to organizations that supported natural marriage. Thus, in Corkins’ mind, the restaurant chain became associated with opposition to his pro-homosexual political agenda.

Corkins entered the Family Research Council with a 9 mm pistol, two ammunition clips of 15 rounds in his front pocket, the rounds in the gun and a box of 50 additional rounds. He also had 15 individually wrapped Chick-fil-A sandwiches. He was not puffing things up when he told his interrogators that he intended "to kill as many people as [he] could."

Boykin, who was deputy undersecretary of defense for Intelligence under President George W. Bush after serving 36 years in the Army as an original member of Delta Force and commander of the Green Berets, later reflected on the FRC attack: "Nothing speaks to the SPLC’s inhumanity as its behavior after the shooting at FRC. How would you react if you had created a map that was used by a terrorist to attempt to kill dozens of people? Wouldn’t decent people conclude … that you were fortunate to have escaped being forever linked to mass murder? Wouldn’t you change course? Of course, that is what decent people would do, but decent people do not run the SPLC."

Highlights of "THE HATE RACKET" include:

•   "Meet the extremists" by David Kupelian, on why a super-wealthy leftwing group would liken Ben Carson and WND to Klansmen and neo-Nazis

•   "Wellspring of manufactured hate: Inside the Southern Poverty Law Center" by James Simpson

•   "Famed neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson branded 'extremist'" by Bob Unruh, on shocking attack on America's top black role model because he opposes same-sex marriage

•   "SPLC steps in it with Ben Carson smear" by Joseph Farah, who says "apology" to one of America's most respected black leaders' proves the group is vulnerable to public opinion

•   "King of the hate business" by Alexander Cockburn, in which celebrated leftwing writer exposes what he calls the "arch-salesman of hate mongering, Mr. Morris Dees"

•   "Harpers exposes 'The Church of Morris Dees'" – iconic liberal publication quotes Dees' business partner as saying, "Morris and I shared the overriding purpose of making a pile of money"

•   "Crushing dissent in the name of tolerance" by Robert Knight, who says "the SPLC has long been the U.S. government’s prime source for what constitutes a hate group'

•   "Military warned 'evangelicals' No. 1 threat" by Jack Minor, on Army briefing that listed Christians as America's top extremist list, ahead of Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaida and the KKK

•   "Obama DHS: 'Right-wing extremists' a greater threat than ISIS" by Chelsea Schilling, on a new government report that predicts jihadists aren't the worst threat for domestic violence in 2015

•   "FBI scrubs key 'hate-crime' partnership" by Bob Unruh, about what happened after the SPLC was "linked to domestic terrorism in federal court"

•   "MSNBC conspiracy theorists" by Joseph Farah, on how the far-left cable network aired an SPLC-assisted attack on WND

•   "Amazon urged to blacklist 'haters'" by Bob Unruh, on SPLC's audacious attempt to put traditional-values groups out of business

•   "The politics of hate" by Lt. Gen. (Ret.) William G. ("Jerry") Boykin, who says: "Nothing speaks to the SPLC’s inhumanity as its behavior after the shooting" at the Family Research Council

•   "The ridiculous ‘hate group’ list" by Robert Spencer, on how repeating the SPLC's defamatory accusations has "become a staple of every report from lazy leftist journalists"

•   "Standing up for Hamas" by Daniel Greenfield, on how the SPLC defends supporters of the genocidal terror group

•   "'Smear artists'? There's no artistry in SPLC's smears" by Don Feder, on how the controversial group equates conservatives, from Dinesh D'Souza to David Horowitz, with Klansmen and Nazis

•   "Liberal lies, Brian Williams and the SPLC" by Matt Barber, a humorous look at how a possible "win-win" job shake-up might provide a new position for the disgraced NBC anchor

•   "Internet in bull's-eye for new 'hate speech' plan" by Jerome Corsi, on a proposal that would evaluate online language and make "recommendations"

One more question: While it's understandable that conservatives and Christians, whom the SPLC maligns for a living, would oppose the group, why would the left condemn with equal harshness what is, after all, a powerful leftwing organization? Why would the well-known liberal-left magazine Harpers, as well as Alexander Cockburn, one of America's most celebrated leftwing journalists until his 2012 death, publish withering rebukes of the group? As "THE HATE RACKET" proves, it's because the SPLC, which started out in the '70s as a law firm dedicated to defending civil rights, no longer even appears to believe in the causes it once espoused.

It's all about the money.

After all, when Ben Carson was asked if he thought the SPLC was "crooked," he replied, "Oh, definitely. Certainly that's been the impression of everybody I've heard from."

Left wing twisted thinking on display

Left wing twisted thinking on display

From a Letter to The Editor, Ohio Paper

The delusion: Corporate greed, high poverty are related

The Narrative: On March 16 there were several articles in the Enquirer related to poverty. One reported almost half of Ohioans live near or below the poverty level. Another article, questioning who speaks for the black community, pointed out that blacks have a disproportionate number of health problems, such as infant mortality, and suggested that where people live and work can affect their health. On the very same day there was an article that reported an Apple smart watch could cost more than $10,000 for the gold-plated version. There was an article about GE working harder to compete globally and how large they can grow will partially depend on how many pesky regulations they have to follow. In other words, fewer rules equals more profits for its CEO. There was also an article that suggested the Veterans Administration may have steered contracts worth millions to special friends.

The Twisted Thinking: Thinking critically, as instructed by the Common Core standards, I understand that there may be some connections and some cause-effect relationships between all of these seemingly isolated reports. Could capitalism on steroids and income inequality be related to high poverty levels? Could fraud and corruption in government also be related in some way to how the 1 percent continues to get richer than all the rest of us? [Making the case against Common Core?]

The Solution: Here’s a novel idea! What if we closed loopholes for huge corporations and asked the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes? What if big companies started to put people ahead of profits? What if the wealthy could no longer make huge donations that corrupt our politicians? Just daydreaming here, but what if the middle class united, organized and demanded change? One simple thing we can do is vote only for leaders who want to fix America’s problems in the next election. 

The Analysis: This is an actual letter to the editor in my local paper. It took three paragraphs for the writer to proffer the old worn out mantra of the left.  His claim of critical thinking is clever by half, the wrong half.

• There are not "loop holes" all individuals and corporations are compelled to follow the tax code or pay the consequences.  In short, what corporations are doing is legal according to the tax law.
• Compare any country that is ravaged by poverty.  They have a system other than capitalism.  They have no liberty, freedom or choice.
• The middle class voting for a leader that puts America first has been the goal since our founding.  However, we have people that continue to vote for career politicians that are well known for putting themselves first. Ask yourself why millions of people voted for Obama twice. Notice the writer did not raise that question!

INTEGRITY OF ELECTIONS AT RISK

INTEGRITY OF OHIO ELECTIONS AT RISK

MARY SIEGEL 

Guest columnist 

Mary Siegel is co-founder and co-leader of the Ohio Voter Integrity Project.


As one of the leaders of Ohio Voter Integrity Project, a nonpartisan voter education and research organization, I disagree with most of the op-ed “Ohio should focus on better voter access” (March 15). But author Sean Wright’s underestimation of the impact of non-citizens voting in our elections is particularly disturbing in light of President Obama’s recent Executive Actions on Immigration.

To date Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, in coordination with the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV), has discovered 453 non-citizens registered to vote in Ohio. Although this number may seem “miniscule,” it can still affect the outcome of our elections, especially at the local level.

Results from the Ohio November 2013 and May 2014 elections revealed that 63 races tied or were decided by just one vote. This demonstrates that every vote has the potential to determine the outcome of any race or ballot issue.

I believe most people would agree that every case of voter suppression is harmful and should be investigated. Since illegal non-citizen votes negate or suppress the votes of legitimate citizens, non-citizen voting is actually voter suppression and should be considered as damaging as any other form of voter suppression.

Instead, the op-ed minimizes the issue by disregarding the 453 cases as “Republicans’ alarmist” propaganda.

What Wright fails to mention is that 5 million potential new cases of non-citizen voter fraud are waiting at America’s doorstep. President Obama’s 2015 Immigration Order, granting Social Security numbers to approximately 5 million new legally present non-citizens, is the largest single threat to the integrity of today’s elections. While the BMV reports citizenship status to the Secretary of State’s Office based on drivers’ licenses and state identification cards, citizenship information related to Social Security numbers is held by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and is not shared with the 50 states. Some states are now trying to pass legislation requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration. But for most states, including Ohio, the verification of U.S. citizenship through a Social Security number is not possible.

In response to the dangers of this “expanding loophole,” Husted sent a letter to Obama in January asking for the states to receive access to the names, date of birth and last four digits of Social Security numbers for all non-citizens who receive a Social Security number. On Feb. 12, Husted, along with the secretaries of state from Maine and Kansas, testified before the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, reiterating the threat of the President’s Executive Actions on the integrity of state and federal elections. As of today, Obama has not responded to Husted’s request. Federal law mandates that any person who registers to vote must be a U.S. citizen. Providing a name, address, date of birth and citizenship information is neither a “trick” question nor racially biased. Every U.S. citizen regardless of race, religion or political affiliation should be alarmed at the potential for non-citizens to register and vote in our elections without being detected by the system.

If our federal government refuses to support Ohio and all states in their verification of citizenship on voter applications, then our government is promoting voter fraud and destroying our electoral freedoms.

No peace in our time - Understanding Netanyahu

No peace in our time

by Charles Krauthammer

Of all the idiocies uttered in reaction to Benjamin Netanyahu’s stunning election victory, none is more ubiquitous than the idea that peace prospects are now dead because Netanyahu has declared that there will be no Palestinian state while he is Israel’s prime minister.

I have news for the lowing herds: There would be no peace and no Palestinian state if Isaac Herzog were prime minister, either. Or Ehud Barak or Ehud Olmert for that matter. The latter two were (non-Likud) prime ministers who offered the Palestinians their own state – with its capital in Jerusalem and every Israeli settlement in the new Palestine uprooted – only to be rudely rejected.

This is not ancient history. This is 2000, 2001 and 2008 – three astonishingly concessionary peace offers within the last 15 years. Every one rejected.

The fundamental reality remains: This generation of Palestinian leadership – from Yasser Arafat to Mahmoud Abbas – has never and will never sign its name to a final peace settlement dividing the land with a Jewish state. And without that, no Israeli government of any kind will agree to a Palestinian state.

Today, however, there is a second reason a peace agreement is impossible: the supreme instability of the entire Middle East. For half a century, it was run by dictators no one liked but with whom you could do business. For example, the 1974 Israel-Syria disengagement agreement yielded more than four decades of near-total quiet on the border because the Assad dictatorships so decreed.

That authoritarian order is gone. Syria is wracked by a multi-sided civil war that has killed 200,000 people and that has al-Qaeda allies, Hezbollah fighters, government troops and even the occasional Iranian general prowling the Israeli border. Who inherits? No one knows.

In the last four years, Egypt has had two revolutions and three radically different regimes. Yemen went from pro-American to Iranian client so quickly the U.S. had to evacuate its embassy in a panic. Libya has gone from Moammar Gadhafi’s crazy authoritarianism to jihadi-dominated civil war. On Wednesday, Tunisia, the one relative success of the Arab Spring, suffered a major terror attack that the prime minister said “targets the stability of the country.”

From Mali to Iraq, everything is in flux. Amid this mayhem, by what magic would the West Bank, riven by a bitter Fatah-Hamas rivalry, be an island of stability? What would give any Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement even a modicum of durability?

There was a time when Arafat commanded the Palestinian movement the way Gadhafi commanded Libya. Abbas commands no one. Why do you think he is in the 11th year of a four-year term, having refused to hold elections for the last five years? Because he’s afraid he would lose to Hamas.

With or without elections, the West Bank could fall to Hamas overnight. At which point fire rains down on Tel Aviv, Ben Gurion Airport and the entire Israeli urban heartland – just as it rains down on southern Israel from Gaza when it suits Hamas.

Any Arab-Israeli peace settlement would require Israel to make dangerous and inherently irreversible territorial concessions on the West Bank in return for promises and guarantees. Under current conditions, these would be written on sand.

Israel is ringed by jihadi terrorists in Sinai, Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Islamic State and Iranian proxies in Syria, and a friendly but highly fragile Jordan. Israelis have no idea who ends up running any of these places.

Well, say the critics. Israel could be given outside guarantees. Guarantees? Like the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in which the U.S., Britain and Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s “territorial integrity”? Like the red line in Syria? Like the unanimous U.N. resolutions declaring illegal any Iranian enrichment of uranium – now effectively rendered null?

Peace awaits three things. Eventual Palestinian acceptance of a Jewish state. A Palestinian leader willing to sign a deal based on that premise. A modicum of regional stability that allows Israel to risk the potentially fatal withdrawals such a deal would entail.

I believe such a day will come. But there is zero chance it comes now or even soon. That’s essentially what Netanyahu said in explaining – and softening – on Thursday his no-Palestinian-state statement.

In the interim, I understand the crushing disappointment of the Obama administration and its media poodles at the spectacular success of the foreign leader they loathe more than any other on the planet. The consequent seething and sputtering are understandable, if unseemly. Blaming Netanyahu for banishing peace, however, is mindless.

Netanyahu victory is a message to Republicans

Netanyahu victory is a message to Republicans

Yesterday’s election in Israel is a healthy reminder that the vote of the people matters. It is also a useful reminder that campaigns can make a big difference.

Prime Minister Netanyahu focused his campaign on national security. He argued that Israel’s very survival is at stake. His opponents wanted to emphasize the economy.

Forced to choose between their pocketbook and their lives, a large number of Israelis chose national security.

The bias of the media in this campaign was obvious and deeply anti-Netanyahu. Before Election Day, there were predictions that Netanyahu’s party, Likud, would only win 21 seats. Then the media decided based on exit polls that the race would be a tie with 24 seats for Likud and 24 for the left.

My guess is that media hostility to Netanyahu caused a significant number of those polled to refuse to admit they voted for him.

In the real results, it seems Likud won 30 seats for a surprisingly big gain in the complex world of Israeli politics. As the New York Post reported, “Not only was that shockingly good for Likud, it was a far stronger showing than in the last election.”

If Netanyahu was the biggest winner of the day, Speaker John Boehner may have been the second biggest winner. His decision to invite the Israeli Prime Minister to address a joint meeting of Congress created a close tie with the newly reelected Israeli leader.

President Obama publicly expressed disdain for Netanyahu and sent political operatives (not to mention, according to some allegations, taxpayer money) to defeat Likud. He lost.

This outcome is a good reminder that elections matter. The real vote was very different from the pre-election analysis which was off by 45% in the number of seats won. It was also “a far cry from the virtual dead heat that television exit polls had reported Tuesday evening,” as the Jerusalem Post put it.

Sometimes leaders have to make powerful, clear, emotional arguments buttressed by compelling and understandable facts. Something that Obama and the Democrats cannot do.

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher used to say, "First you win the argument, then you win the vote."

This outcome has to worry Hillary Clinton, who saw Barack Obama win the 2007-2008 primary campaign even though she was far-and-away the frontrunner, in part because she had no argument to make. She seems to have the same problem today.

Republicans should take heart that a campaign that focuses on making an important fact based argument can lead to a good election outcome. 

Climate change really a ruse for socialist agenda

Climate change really a ruse for socialist agenda

by Walter E. Williams

"But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact,” said President Barack Obama in his 2014 State of the Union address. Saying the debate is settled is nonsense, but the president is right about climate change.

GlobalChange.gov gives the definition of climate change: “Changes in average weather conditions that persist over multiple decades or longer. Climate change encompasses both increases and decreases in temperature, as well as shifts in precipitation, changing risk of certain types of severe weather events, and changes to other features of the climate system.” That definition covers all weather phenomena throughout all 4.54 billion years of Earth’s existence.

You say, “Williams, that’s not what the warmers are talking about. It’s the high CO2 levels caused by mankind’s industrial activities that are causing the climate change!” There’s a problem with that reasoning. Today CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 parts per million. This level of CO2 concentration is trivial compared with the concentrations during earlier geologic periods. For example, 460 million years ago, during the Ordovician Period, CO2 concentrations were 4,400 ppm, and temperatures then were about the same as they are today. With such high levels of CO2, at least according to the warmers, the Earth should have been boiling.

Then there are warmer predictions. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, warmers, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, made all manner of doomsday predictions about global warming and the increased frequency of hurricanes. According to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, “no Category 3-5 hurricane has struck the United States for a record nine years, and Earth’s temperature has not budged for 18 years.”

Climate change predictions have been wrong for decades.

Let’s look at some. At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.” In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich predicted that there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and that “in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people (would) starve to death.” Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989 and that by 1999, the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich’s predictions about England were gloomier. He said, “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

In 1970, Harvard University biologist George Wald predicted, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson, in Look magazine in April 1970, said that by 1995, “somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals (would) be extinct.”

Climate change propaganda is simply a ruse for a socialist agenda.

Consider the statements of some environmentalist leaders. Christiana Figueres, the U.N.’s chief climate change official, said that her unelected bureaucrats are undertaking “probably the most difficult task” they have ever given themselves, “which is to intentionally transform the (global) economic development model.” In 2010, German economist and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official Ottmar Edenhofer said, “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” The article in which that interview appeared summarized Edenhofer’s views this way: “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. ... The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

The most disgusting aspect of the climate change debate is the statements by many that it’s settled science. There is nothing more antiscientific than the idea that any science is settled. Very often we find that the half-life of many scientific ideas is about 50 years. For academics to not criticize their colleagues and politicians for suggesting that scientific ideas are not subject to challenge is the height of academic dishonesty.

The Liberals’ Oligopoly Model Is Dying

Written by Gary North 

The banking industry is based on oligopoly. The political structure is based on oligopoly.

Now, because Internet bandwidth keeps getting cheaper, the oligopoly model is collapsing. Only in politics and education is the linear model still dominant. But it is clear that it is going to die in education. The Khan Academy is the wave of the future. So is the Ron Paul Curriculum. The bankruptcy of two private colleges last week is the canary in the coal mine of higher education. Sweet Briar and Tennessee Temple are closing their doors. This is the wave of the future.

TELEVISION IS THE MODEL

My wife and I have not watched live television in years. We will not watch television advertising under any circumstances.

We use a cable television service. We automatically record the shows that we like to see each week, and then we watch them the next day or later in the day, in the case of Sunday Morning. When the advertisements come on, either I or my wife speeds through them.

This is going to destroy the networks. Everything hinges on advertising revenue, and the advertisers do not know how many people are watching their ads. Only the late-night infomercials, which also run all day Sunday, are tied to response devices. The ad agency knows whether an ad is profitable. It can trace the response. It will kill an ad that does not work. Companies will not pay for ads that do not pull. They won’t waste money. But this is not true of most television advertising. The advertisers pay for ads that don’t work. But now they don’t have to. They can do an end run around blast ads — linear ads — that do not have response devices.

The latest data for fourth quarter in 2014 revealed that Americans are now watching less TV than ever before. The average family watched slightly less than five hours of live television a week. That is the only television watching that counts for advertisers. Any television watching that is done through TiVo or some similar technology undermines the model for commercial television. That is because people will not watch the advertising. I am not alone in my rejection of television advertising. Just press a button, and the ads race by. So do network revenues.

It is not just that people are not watching network television; they are not watching cable television, either. They are watching Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu. They watch what they want to see when they want to see it. They are now in control of their time schedules.

Unrealistic reality TV shows do not make it onto Netflix or Amazon Prime. They are dropped down the memory hole. Nobody cares who wins the big race once it is over. The Biggest Loser is a big loser on Netflix. These shows are inexpensive to produce, and they have produced enormous net profits for the network television industry, but they do not gain residual income.

LIBERALS ARE LOSING CONTROL

The liberal intelligentsia has been in control of entertainment for 80 years. This control is now fading. Interactive viewing, such as games, undermines the model adopted by the liberal intelligentsia. They adopted one way broadcasting. It is called the linear programming. Today, this model is fading. It is going to continue to fade.

They also adopted an oligopoly model. They gained control of the Federal Communications Commission in the 1930’s, and they began using that control immediately. Liberals had immediate control of radio. This was extended to television after 1945. They had control over the movies, as well. They still maintain control of television, although radio has moved in the direction of talk radio, which is interactive. Here, liberals cannot compete. They had control of newspapers. That control is also fading. Newspapers are disappearing. Young adults do not read them.

Adults do not go to movies often. They are watching less cable television. They are watching less network television. They are reading fewer newspapers. Demographics are against liberals in all four media. This means that the future of liberals’ control over the media is being called into question.

Here is the universal rule of the Internet: bandwidth gets cheaper. In three words, the liberals’ control over American media is being challenged. As bandwidth gets cheaper, more producers can afford to enter the field of digital entertainment. This siphons off adults’ viewing time. Consumers can buy the kind of entertainment they want. They can pay for it on terms suitable to them. They are paying a monthly fee for Netflix. They are paying an annual fee of about $100 for Amazon Prime. They are paying for individual movies on Amazon. This undermines the business models of network television and cable television. Cable television rests on the idea that people will pay for packaged entertainment, 80% of which does not interest them at all. That model is fading fast. People won’t pay for it anymore.

Hollywood used to be built on a tight linear model. Prior to the mid-1960’s, people went to the movies to see a main feature. In order to see the main feature, they also had to put up with a secondary feature, called a B-movie. It was always in black and white. The movie theaters made their money on the sale of popcorn and drinks. So, the goal was to keep people in the movie theaters longer. Hollywood supplied an A-movie and a B-movie. In between was a newsreel. There was an intermission in between. During the intermission, people went to buy popcorn. The goal was to keep people in the theater for at least three hours, and preferably four hours. They would get hungry. They would buy popcorn.

This model began to get challenged sometime around 1965. Multiple screen theaters began, and B-movies disappeared. The goal now was to get lots of people to come lots of A-movies, but only one per ticket. They also watch the advertisements, which are strangely called trailers, even though they begin the movies. Today, theaters are actually selling regular advertising. The old model, which enabled Hollywood to make money from its studios by producing more movies, collapsed after 1965. The studios went bankrupt because overhead costs increased. They trained their technicians with the B-movies. They had lower-paid actors who performed in B-movies. These B-movies generated income. When the multiplexes came, the B-movies died. The old business model died with it.

Consumers’ tastes changed, and old models died. It is happening again. Because bandwidth keeps getting cheaper; old models are dying. When people get greater choice, they benefit, and the suppliers must adjust their models. This is what is happening today, and it is a knife at the throat of liberalism.

A generation ago, someone asked chess master Bobby Fischer what he liked most about chess. His answer was classic: “I love to see ‘em squirm.” I have exactly the same delight as I watch linear programming sink in the continuing storm cheaper bandwidth.